R1 and R2 both mean Iulia sees Anna under the explicit-role contract. R3 reverses those roles. R4 supplies two accusatives but no explicit nominative, leaving the named subject unresolved. The HTML checks role IDs using this exact four-form bank.
Work through the example
Enter R2, subject Iulia and object Anna, then Check roles. The feedback cites nominative Iulia and accusative Annam despite the changed order. R3 requires subject Anna and object Iulia. R4 returns missing explicit-subject information instead of inventing a subject from position.
Assign one partner the subject and the other the direct object, then swap responsibilities on the next card. Each answer needs a cited form from the bank. Word order and case-form change are different operations. Accept a defensible English rendering after reviewing those roles; do not turn this four-form check into a claim about arbitrary Latin constructions or every word ending in a.
Give learners the exact form bank
Keep the scope deliberately small: simple active transitive clauses using the supplied singular forms and the fixed verb videt, meaning sees, in the present active third-person singular.
| Supplied form | Character referenced | Case in this packet |
|---|---|---|
| Iulia | Iulia | Nominative singular |
| Iuliam | Iulia | Accusative singular |
| Anna | Anna | Nominative singular |
| Annam | Anna | Accusative singular |
Dickinson College's grammar identifies nominative as the subject case and accusative as the direct-object case, while also documenting other case uses. Its declension references provide background for the forms; the table here is the exercise's exact supplied bank. Number and case, noun declension, first-declension background
Do not turn this bank into a rule that every word ending in a is a subject or every word ending in m has the same role in every construction. Other declensions, case ambiguities, prepositions, passive clauses, and infinitives lie outside the exercise. Character names identify the fictional participants; grammatical roles do not label students' gender or identity.
Compare order changes with form changes
Use the following teacher ledger, separately from the blank learner worksheet:
| Card | Original sentence | Subject and form evidence | Direct object and form evidence | Role-based English rendering |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| R1 | Iulia Annam videt | Iulia: Iulia is supplied nominative | Anna: Annam is supplied accusative | Iulia sees Anna. |
| R2 | Annam videt Iulia | Iulia: Iulia is supplied nominative | Anna: Annam is supplied accusative | Iulia sees Anna. |
| R3 | Anna Iuliam videt | Anna: Anna is supplied nominative | Iulia: Iuliam is supplied accusative | Anna sees Iulia. |
R1 and R2 have the same role assignments. The first word in R2 is the object form, not the actor. The English rendering states those roles; it does not claim the Latin orders have identical emphasis or equal naturalness in every context.
R3 changes the forms and reverses the roles. Anna is now the nominative subject, while Iuliam names Iulia in the accusative. Keep surface form and character reference in separate columns: Iuliam is not a newly introduced character called “Iuliam.”
Ask learners to complete the comparison: “R1 to R2 changes ___ while keeping ___,” then “R1 to R3 changes ___.” Require a cited form from the bank. That makes the answer inspectable even when learners choose different defensible English wording.
Use the fourth card to expose the packet's limit
R4 reads Iuliam Annam videt. Both named forms are accusative in the supplied bank. This packet requires one explicit nominative and one explicit accusative to assign its two named roles. R4 therefore lacks the explicit subject information the exercise requires.
Recreate this example
Build one self-contained responsive HTML example titled “Latin classroom game: follow the supplied forms” for readers completing the stated task. Return the complete HTML with embedded CSS and JavaScript. Use no remote fonts, libraries, images, requests, account connections, or saved-state claims.
Cards: R1 Iulia Annam videt; R2 Annam videt Iulia; R3 Anna Iuliam videt; R4 Iuliam Annam videt. Supply Iulia/Anna nominative and Iuliam/Annam accusative. videt means sees. Labeled card ID, subject character and object character inputs plus Check roles. R1/R2 expect Iulia/Anna, R3 Anna/Iulia. R4 reports no supplied nominative under this explicit-role contract without universally declaring impossible Latin. Invalid card and missing roles get specific errors. Cite forms on correct results and clear stale feedback on edits.
Use a classical language card desk with form bank and role evidence design with a compact header. Keep the actual sample data, controls, and useful default result visible early on a 360px-wide screen. Use readable text at least 16px, generous paragraph spacing, strong contrast, semantic labels, visible keyboard focus, and wrapping source blocks. Stack records on narrow screens rather than forcing a wide table.
Wire each action to an explicit type=button click handler using element selectors; the host permits scripts but blocks form submission. Update the visible result when the described action occurs. Show specific error feedback for invalid or missing input and clear stale feedback after dependent inputs change. Use plain text when displaying user values.
A four-form role checker is not a general Latin parser or free-translation grader. Keep the source fixture and worked teacher or developer example distinct from actual user records. Include the domain-specific explanation and next check beside the result. Provide no fake download, send, deployment, approval, or persistence button. Everything operates locally for the current page session.
Review the prepared copy in NOS
Compare R1 with R2 before introducing R3 so learners can separate order from form changes. If you keep an HTML card explanation in NOS, eligible static teaching instructions can be revised in visual editing mode. The supplied bank and teacher-reviewed role evidence remain the activity’s authority.